0 votes

Electoral college

Shouldnt we start efforts to get the Electors we want elected on election day?Then I also must wonder what the real likeley hood is that Paul can win the electoral college.?If we were to have another reoccurence like the ones in 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000,Will all you ron paul patriots be willing to what is required of us to get the canidate into office that won the popular vote?
I was talking to a freind of mine that wants to remain nameless but is a state represanitive,he likes paul but says we are wasitng our time because we should be concertrating in addition to what we are doing now but also to reaching and getting the state delegates into office we would want ,and that he says is unlikley to happen.Im am not trying to be negitive but rather get a dialouge going on these facts so that we may start on a path to overcome these obstacles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College
Losing the popular vote
This graphic shows how the loser of the popular vote can win in the Electoral College.
This graphic shows how the loser of the popular vote can win in the Electoral College.

In the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000, the candidate who received a plurality of the popular vote did not become president. The 1824 election was eventually decided by Congress and thus distinct from the last three which were decided without. It has also been argued that the 1960 election was lost by the candidate receiving the most popular votes. [4]

Proponents of the system counter that the Electoral College requires candidates to garner more widespread support throughout the Union; a popular vote system could elect a person who wins by a large margin in a few states over another person who wins by small margins in most states. The latter candidate, the argument goes, appeals to a broader array of interests than the former and is less likely to be a demagogue or extremist. However, the Electoral College is not guaranteed to favor the latter candidate in that scenario. In fact, given the 2000 allocation of electors, a candidate could win with the support of just the 11 largest states.

Given the electoral college, there is no legal significance to the national popular vote. Because combining the different statewide popular votes into a single national vote has no legal or statistical significance, both voters and campaigns may base their strategies around the existence of the Electoral College. Claims of the electoral college denying the popular will are, therefore, debatable. For example, voters in Massachusetts or Texas in 2004, as their respective states were sure to vote Democrat or Republican for President, were more likely to vote for a third party candidate, or not vote at all, since their vote for their preferred Democratic or Republican candidate was extremely unlikely to change the result. Conversely, a voter in Florida was more likely to vote Democrat or Republican, even if they favored a third-party candidate, because their vote was much more likely to make a difference. Similarly, in any close race, candidates campaign to maximize electoral votes, not to maximize national popular vote totals.

The effects of this phenomenon are somewhat kn



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I agree.

Meet with your local GOP.

Link

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/politics/campaign2004/08delega...

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms is ,as a last resort ,to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-Thomas Jefferson